Re:Troubleshooting skills.
on
Stargate Universe
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
A runabout crashing into a borg cube at warp seven would do quite a bit more damage than a photon torpedo, I would imagine. I guess kinetic energy just isn't "futuristic" enough
There's at least a plausible defense here in that warp drives might not generate much in the way of kinetic energy. It seems like maybe if you could warp space-time you could make weird pockets of gravity or whatever to tear a ship apart, but then maybe it'd be hard to project a warp field very far, and another ship with warp engines might be able to counter the effect easily....
Um.... erm.... I mean.... god, did I really just write that? Sorry.
Well also, unfortunately, sometimes this stuff ends up dying because some executive doesn't like the show. I don't know about Firefly in particular, but sometimes it's not even about ratings, but it boils down to politics and some guy's personal taste.
Like let's say some executive signs a deal for a new show and then shortly after moves on to another job. The next guy to take the executive's position didn't like the previous executive, so he basically sabotages the shows that guy signed. Or maybe it's not personal, but the new guy wants to get his own pet project in to the choice time-slot, so he kills the show that was already there.
Or there's the case of Quantum Leap, which eventually lost its ratings after repeatedly being moved to new time-slots. Rumor is the head of NBC at the time just didn't like the show and was trying to kill it.
I also read something fairly recently (though I can't remember where or find it again) that said a lot of newspapers started doing better when they were recently revamped. They modernized their design to make them more appealing and easier to read, easier to find what you were looking for, etc. Some of it was just making the things prettier, but it was also about reevaluating the organization, structure, and layout to make them more accessible and pleasant to read.
So it at least raises the question whether people won't buy newspapers at all anymore, or whether newspapers are just doing a bad job going after their audience.
We're in a unique part of history where there is a huge upheaval in technology - mostly centered around computing
I'm not sure it's quite unique. Yes, it's unique in the sense that every event in history is unique-- it will never happen again quite the same way. However, there have been social/economic upheavals due to new technology before. Even something as simple as the adoption of iron for making tools and weapons instead of bronze brought an enormous impact. The printing press made books available to pretty much anyone. Recorded audio and video has had a big impact in the last century.
So I guess you could say the introduction of computers and the Internet are "unique", just as the printing press was a unique point in history. But this sort of upheaval caused by new technology has happened before, and will probably happen again.
Because if Corporations didn't have First Amendment rights, Richard Nixon could have shut down the New York Times for publishing the Pentagon Papers
I don't think anyone would argue that newspapers have some first amendment rights, but the first amendment specifically mentions "the press". The first amendment doesn't end with, "and therefore a corporate owner of a newspaper shall legally be considered a 'person'."
Of course corporations should have some legal protections. That's not the same as saying they should be considered "people".
Why should that need to be an amendment? Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that corporations are "people". I should think that you'd need an amendment to say that they are people.
The constitution doesn't say that the enumerated rights to citizens don't apply to dogs or rocks. If someone started trying to assign rock with constitutional rights, I doubt we'd bother with an amendment. We'd just say that guy is an idiot and move on.
Well also these sorts of questions always seem to be framed in the idea that something that will hurt a particular industry will "harm the economy", in that it will be an industry not profiting and therefore not paying taxes and not generating jobs. However, this ignores that all the money previously spent on textbooks will now be freed up to be spent on other things.
So if we had open source textbooks (assuming the quality didn't suffer), we'd not have those textbooks essentially for free, plus extra money to spend on whatever other industries we want. Those sorts of gains in efficiency is what makes economies grow. Add in the potential gains it would have for education and making education cheaper and more available, and it could be a huge benefit to our society as a whole.
Will a bill such as this endanger publishing companies in the same way Internet journalism endangers traditional journalism?
And if it does, then what?
It's not the government's job to protect particular business models or industries from technological innovation. It's also not particularly the government's job, in my opinion, to go out of its way to give money to private companies without a compelling public interest. Even before open source licenses were commonplace, I would have argued that any intellectual property generated with public funds should automatically be put into the public domain. Making it open source is a possible alternative, but if materials are generated with my tax dollars, I shouldn't generally have to pay again to use them.
That makes sense, but do you just need it to be longer, or heavier, or does it need to take up 18"x12" of desk space? Is that just for inkjet, or laserjet too?
I know I'm whining a bit and it's not really the place for it, but you sound like you know what you're talking about and I'm curious. I may not represent the mass market, but I'd prefer a printer that was slow and had only passable quality, but took up half the space. Is that really not possible, with all the technology we have today? I worked for a company 10 years ago that had an B&W inkjet that was about 13"x5"x3" (for carrying around with your laptop). I'm sitting next to a 10 year old fax machine that's about 1/3 the size of the laser printer right next to it. The quality of the printouts suck, but then it's 10 years old and still working. It seems like they should be able to make some kind of a decent B&W compact printer.
One thing that I don't understand about those cheap-o printers is, why the hell are they still so big? I have a cheap Canon inkjet printer and I'm reasonably happy with it. I mean, it works and it looks ok most of the time, and I don't use it too much so it's fine. But even though it's a pretty recent printer, it still comes in a package that's a solid 18"x12"x6" block. Lift it, and you can tell that most of that block is air. It's even bigger than the printer I had 10 years ago.
Now I understand that there are certain limits to how compact you can make these things. The ink doesn't compress very much, and it needs to be wide enough to feed the paper through. But why are consumer printers still so bulky? Look at the electronics in the modern cell phone. Hell, they even have little portable photo printers that do a passable job. So why aren't there compact consumer printers? Surely I'm not the only one who's annoyed by a printer I rarely use taking up half my deskspace.
I don't mind them "killing an industry" when you're talking about an industry that shouldn't really exist. If you could kill the antivirus industry by effectively solving the antivirus problem, then by all means, go for it.
In your QEMM example, it's a business making money from fixing a shortcoming of Microsoft's product. If Microsoft wants to fix their product, I don't see why that should be a problem.
The problem is more about cases like IE, where they drove competitors out of the market and then stopped. Not only was IE crappy and insecure, but they weren't even developing upgrades to fix the problems.
So that would be the problem: if they drove all the AV competitors out of business and then stopped developing their AV product, leaving us with an insecure platform and no way to secure it.
The "service and support" model in FOSS can sound like a racket as well.
I'm not sure how. If I'm paying for support on a FOSS product, then it better damned well be worth the money. If I'm not happy with the support, there isn't much they can do to me.
One blogger remembered his first impression upon entering a profession in IT that made it seem like the place to be with a new shiny around every corner.
Often, whenever you're embarking on something new, it seems exciting and new. Your first impression on entering a profession is bound to contain much more hope and potential than after you've been in that profession for a couple decades.
On the other hand, I do wonder if there isn't something stagnant about the current situation. It seems to me like there have been periods of substantial improvement and new technologies in IT, and it feels to me like we're not really in one right now. Machines keep getting faster and screens are getting nicer, but a lot of the fundamental problems continue to go unaddressed. No IPv6, no better method of managing SSL certs, the next-gen filesystems still aren't here yet, my backup is about the same as it was 10 years ago, and everyone is still using Windows XP and Office 2003.
The day we traded the guru individualist programmer doing arcane tweak
Why should we want a individualist programmer doing arcane tweaks? That sort of thing often seems to end up being an unmanageable mess somewhere down the road. I'd much rather that things be done in a standard and easy-to-manage way, especially given how overpowered modern machines are for what most of us use them for.
You could do a modern version that would be less intrusive. For example, make a small bluetooth device with a short range, and have the computer automatically log out whenever the device got out of range. There are programs that will do this with your cell phone, assuming the cell phone has bluetooth.
Of course, it'd be nice if someone would standardize some of this stuff. Personally, I think it'd be nice if we could have some kind of universal ID that worked on private-key encryption, and we used that instead of passwords. You know, like you have your own SSL cert that you can use to encrypt files and email, sign into websites, log in via SSH, etc. AFAIK no one is offering a well supported and well integrated solution for that.
I don't know how we can expect a good solution for un-authentication if we haven't even come up with good standard solutions for authentication yet.
That's largely what I came in here to say. It may be true that really fast unlimited Internet access makes it easier and more convenient to engage in certain kinds of illegitimate behavior, but it also makes it easier to engage in lots of legitimate and useful behavior.
In this case, it may be true that unlimited broadband will hurt media companies by making piracy easier, but it could also help their businesses by opening up all kinds of new business opportunities. The problem they're having seems to be that they're dragging their feet on new business opportunities.
My big question is, who's paying this "legal group"? Is it the record companies who are trying to keep their old business models? Or is it the ISPs who are looking for an excuse to not provide good service?
Yeah, I read an article recently (maybe it was posted on Slashdot? I can't remember and can't find it) about how this particular rule of grammar seemed to be changing. More and more, people are putting punctuation outside of quotation marks unless the punctuation is supposed to be part of the quote.
The theory put forth in the article was that the internet was more and more becoming the medium where people did most of their writing, and programmers and technical folk still have disproportionate influence on the Internet. Because putting punctuation outside of quotes makes a certain kind of technical sense, it was becoming a more conventional way of doing things.
Of course, I'm way off on a tangent, so I'll shut up now.
By guaranteeing that Moscow could hit back, Perimeter was actually designed to keep an overeager Soviet military or civilian leader from launching prematurely during a crisis. The point, [an informant] says, was 'to cool down all these hotheads and extremists. No matter what was going to happen, there still would be revenge. Those who attack us will be punished.'
I agree that this is probably not a big problem. You might think that having public domain books wouldn't be attractive to Amazon because they miss out on the profit of selling books, and therefore there's some nefarious motives here.
On the other hand, having public domain books available is probably very attractive to Amazon in that it makes more content available for the Kindle, which means the Kindle is a more attractive product. If they want to sell Kindles and sell content to the Kindle, then having a bunch of free content available is a good thing. My guess is there isn't anything corrupt or nefarious going on, but they really are just trying to sort out the submission process as they claim.
I'm glad someone brought up the difference between redundancy/failover and backup. If you really care about your data, mirroring to another server isn't a much better backup solution than using RAID with mirroring. It protects you against hardware damage, but not necessarily against data corruption or data loss. If you're going to rsync to another server, you should look into having it keep backups instead of overwriting when something changes.
As you mentioned, nightly snapshots are a great way of handling it, too. However, I still like the idea of writing to tape periodically. Writing to tape provides a real backup instead of just a mirror, it's easy to send them offsite, in some ways they're less fragile than hard drives and supposedly easier to recover if they do break. Also, depending on how much is changing how often, rsyncing might use up a crap-ton of bandwidth (though apparently that's not as big a deal in the submitter's case, since he has GigE).
On the other hand, your suggestion of building a duplicate of the "real" machine has a benefit that other backup solutions don't: in the case of a real disaster, you not only have your data saved on another machine, but you can use the backup while you recover the original server. On the other hand, I don't know how much to trust a Drobo device, so in this particular case I might suggest getting some heavier equipment. (Or are Drobos actually good? I've never used one.)
Of course, there's another issue that I haven't seen anyone bring up, which is: is all of this data vital? You have 12 TB of storage, but is all of that completely irreplaceable, necessary data? Are some of those temporary files, scratch files, working files, or cache? Is any of it just dumb crap that you don't care about? It may seem like a dumb question, in every company I've worked for, if you give the employees free access to any amount of space, they'll fill it up. They'll have 20 copies of the same file, and someone will have put their 100GB MP3 collection on the server if you don't keep them from doing it. If you can organize the files and sort the necessary files from the crap, you might be able to cut down on the amount you need to back up.
Then again, storage is so cheap, maybe you don't care.
Yeah, I guess my point was only that it's not *simply* that they're trying to make money. It's not just that they want to take your money right now and don't care about the quality of the product they're producing. That's one kind of problem, but it's not the only thing going on.
They're also trying to lock everything down and control everything so that they can continually charge you without producing anything more, and guarantee a profitable business model even if they don't continue to produce anything of value or interest.
Well what's the difference really? They could say that the bill is $50 and you have to pay an extra $1.50 for a paper bill, or they could say the bill is $51.50 and you get a $1.50 discount for not receiving paper bills. Same thing.
But you're right in that it's smarter marketing to frame is as a discount rather than an additional charge.
Does DEP do anything other than make me disable it when it has a false positive on some application that I want to run? I think that the only time I've heard of it was when Windows wouldn't install some driver (and yes, I confirmed that it was a real driver from a valid source) and the website said, "If you have this problem, disable DEP."
If anything the last decade has taught us about the modus operandi of music industries is that they simply dont care and want their dollars.
Not to be needlessly argumentative, but I think part of what the past decade has taught me is that they want their *control*. They'll sacrifice a few dollars if it means that they get to maintain control over what you listen to, how you listen to it, and where you get it. They'll spend tons of money trying to ram a new album down your throat, and then once you buy it they'll spend some more money to keep you from listening to it without buying it again.
Slashdot Mirror
A runabout crashing into a borg cube at warp seven would do quite a bit more damage than a photon torpedo, I would imagine. I guess kinetic energy just isn't "futuristic" enough
There's at least a plausible defense here in that warp drives might not generate much in the way of kinetic energy. It seems like maybe if you could warp space-time you could make weird pockets of gravity or whatever to tear a ship apart, but then maybe it'd be hard to project a warp field very far, and another ship with warp engines might be able to counter the effect easily....
Um.... erm.... I mean.... god, did I really just write that? Sorry.
Well also, unfortunately, sometimes this stuff ends up dying because some executive doesn't like the show. I don't know about Firefly in particular, but sometimes it's not even about ratings, but it boils down to politics and some guy's personal taste.
Like let's say some executive signs a deal for a new show and then shortly after moves on to another job. The next guy to take the executive's position didn't like the previous executive, so he basically sabotages the shows that guy signed. Or maybe it's not personal, but the new guy wants to get his own pet project in to the choice time-slot, so he kills the show that was already there.
Or there's the case of Quantum Leap, which eventually lost its ratings after repeatedly being moved to new time-slots. Rumor is the head of NBC at the time just didn't like the show and was trying to kill it.
I also read something fairly recently (though I can't remember where or find it again) that said a lot of newspapers started doing better when they were recently revamped. They modernized their design to make them more appealing and easier to read, easier to find what you were looking for, etc. Some of it was just making the things prettier, but it was also about reevaluating the organization, structure, and layout to make them more accessible and pleasant to read.
So it at least raises the question whether people won't buy newspapers at all anymore, or whether newspapers are just doing a bad job going after their audience.
We're in a unique part of history where there is a huge upheaval in technology - mostly centered around computing
I'm not sure it's quite unique. Yes, it's unique in the sense that every event in history is unique-- it will never happen again quite the same way. However, there have been social/economic upheavals due to new technology before. Even something as simple as the adoption of iron for making tools and weapons instead of bronze brought an enormous impact. The printing press made books available to pretty much anyone. Recorded audio and video has had a big impact in the last century.
So I guess you could say the introduction of computers and the Internet are "unique", just as the printing press was a unique point in history. But this sort of upheaval caused by new technology has happened before, and will probably happen again.
Because if Corporations didn't have First Amendment rights, Richard Nixon could have shut down the New York Times for publishing the Pentagon Papers
I don't think anyone would argue that newspapers have some first amendment rights, but the first amendment specifically mentions "the press". The first amendment doesn't end with, "and therefore a corporate owner of a newspaper shall legally be considered a 'person'."
Of course corporations should have some legal protections. That's not the same as saying they should be considered "people".
Why should that need to be an amendment? Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that corporations are "people". I should think that you'd need an amendment to say that they are people.
The constitution doesn't say that the enumerated rights to citizens don't apply to dogs or rocks. If someone started trying to assign rock with constitutional rights, I doubt we'd bother with an amendment. We'd just say that guy is an idiot and move on.
Well also these sorts of questions always seem to be framed in the idea that something that will hurt a particular industry will "harm the economy", in that it will be an industry not profiting and therefore not paying taxes and not generating jobs. However, this ignores that all the money previously spent on textbooks will now be freed up to be spent on other things.
So if we had open source textbooks (assuming the quality didn't suffer), we'd not have those textbooks essentially for free, plus extra money to spend on whatever other industries we want. Those sorts of gains in efficiency is what makes economies grow. Add in the potential gains it would have for education and making education cheaper and more available, and it could be a huge benefit to our society as a whole.
Will a bill such as this endanger publishing companies in the same way Internet journalism endangers traditional journalism?
And if it does, then what?
It's not the government's job to protect particular business models or industries from technological innovation. It's also not particularly the government's job, in my opinion, to go out of its way to give money to private companies without a compelling public interest. Even before open source licenses were commonplace, I would have argued that any intellectual property generated with public funds should automatically be put into the public domain. Making it open source is a possible alternative, but if materials are generated with my tax dollars, I shouldn't generally have to pay again to use them.
That makes sense, but do you just need it to be longer, or heavier, or does it need to take up 18"x12" of desk space? Is that just for inkjet, or laserjet too?
I know I'm whining a bit and it's not really the place for it, but you sound like you know what you're talking about and I'm curious. I may not represent the mass market, but I'd prefer a printer that was slow and had only passable quality, but took up half the space. Is that really not possible, with all the technology we have today? I worked for a company 10 years ago that had an B&W inkjet that was about 13"x5"x3" (for carrying around with your laptop). I'm sitting next to a 10 year old fax machine that's about 1/3 the size of the laser printer right next to it. The quality of the printouts suck, but then it's 10 years old and still working. It seems like they should be able to make some kind of a decent B&W compact printer.
One thing that I don't understand about those cheap-o printers is, why the hell are they still so big? I have a cheap Canon inkjet printer and I'm reasonably happy with it. I mean, it works and it looks ok most of the time, and I don't use it too much so it's fine. But even though it's a pretty recent printer, it still comes in a package that's a solid 18"x12"x6" block. Lift it, and you can tell that most of that block is air. It's even bigger than the printer I had 10 years ago.
Now I understand that there are certain limits to how compact you can make these things. The ink doesn't compress very much, and it needs to be wide enough to feed the paper through. But why are consumer printers still so bulky? Look at the electronics in the modern cell phone. Hell, they even have little portable photo printers that do a passable job. So why aren't there compact consumer printers? Surely I'm not the only one who's annoyed by a printer I rarely use taking up half my deskspace.
I don't mind them "killing an industry" when you're talking about an industry that shouldn't really exist. If you could kill the antivirus industry by effectively solving the antivirus problem, then by all means, go for it.
In your QEMM example, it's a business making money from fixing a shortcoming of Microsoft's product. If Microsoft wants to fix their product, I don't see why that should be a problem.
The problem is more about cases like IE, where they drove competitors out of the market and then stopped. Not only was IE crappy and insecure, but they weren't even developing upgrades to fix the problems.
So that would be the problem: if they drove all the AV competitors out of business and then stopped developing their AV product, leaving us with an insecure platform and no way to secure it.
The "service and support" model in FOSS can sound like a racket as well.
I'm not sure how. If I'm paying for support on a FOSS product, then it better damned well be worth the money. If I'm not happy with the support, there isn't much they can do to me.
One blogger remembered his first impression upon entering a profession in IT that made it seem like the place to be with a new shiny around every corner.
Often, whenever you're embarking on something new, it seems exciting and new. Your first impression on entering a profession is bound to contain much more hope and potential than after you've been in that profession for a couple decades.
On the other hand, I do wonder if there isn't something stagnant about the current situation. It seems to me like there have been periods of substantial improvement and new technologies in IT, and it feels to me like we're not really in one right now. Machines keep getting faster and screens are getting nicer, but a lot of the fundamental problems continue to go unaddressed. No IPv6, no better method of managing SSL certs, the next-gen filesystems still aren't here yet, my backup is about the same as it was 10 years ago, and everyone is still using Windows XP and Office 2003.
The day we traded the guru individualist programmer doing arcane tweak
Why should we want a individualist programmer doing arcane tweaks? That sort of thing often seems to end up being an unmanageable mess somewhere down the road. I'd much rather that things be done in a standard and easy-to-manage way, especially given how overpowered modern machines are for what most of us use them for.
You could do a modern version that would be less intrusive. For example, make a small bluetooth device with a short range, and have the computer automatically log out whenever the device got out of range. There are programs that will do this with your cell phone, assuming the cell phone has bluetooth.
Of course, it'd be nice if someone would standardize some of this stuff. Personally, I think it'd be nice if we could have some kind of universal ID that worked on private-key encryption, and we used that instead of passwords. You know, like you have your own SSL cert that you can use to encrypt files and email, sign into websites, log in via SSH, etc. AFAIK no one is offering a well supported and well integrated solution for that.
I don't know how we can expect a good solution for un-authentication if we haven't even come up with good standard solutions for authentication yet.
That's largely what I came in here to say. It may be true that really fast unlimited Internet access makes it easier and more convenient to engage in certain kinds of illegitimate behavior, but it also makes it easier to engage in lots of legitimate and useful behavior.
In this case, it may be true that unlimited broadband will hurt media companies by making piracy easier, but it could also help their businesses by opening up all kinds of new business opportunities. The problem they're having seems to be that they're dragging their feet on new business opportunities.
My big question is, who's paying this "legal group"? Is it the record companies who are trying to keep their old business models? Or is it the ISPs who are looking for an excuse to not provide good service?
Yeah, I read an article recently (maybe it was posted on Slashdot? I can't remember and can't find it) about how this particular rule of grammar seemed to be changing. More and more, people are putting punctuation outside of quotation marks unless the punctuation is supposed to be part of the quote.
The theory put forth in the article was that the internet was more and more becoming the medium where people did most of their writing, and programmers and technical folk still have disproportionate influence on the Internet. Because putting punctuation outside of quotes makes a certain kind of technical sense, it was becoming a more conventional way of doing things.
Of course, I'm way off on a tangent, so I'll shut up now.
If you RTFS:
By guaranteeing that Moscow could hit back, Perimeter was actually designed to keep an overeager Soviet military or civilian leader from launching prematurely during a crisis. The point, [an informant] says, was 'to cool down all these hotheads and extremists. No matter what was going to happen, there still would be revenge. Those who attack us will be punished.'
I agree that this is probably not a big problem. You might think that having public domain books wouldn't be attractive to Amazon because they miss out on the profit of selling books, and therefore there's some nefarious motives here.
On the other hand, having public domain books available is probably very attractive to Amazon in that it makes more content available for the Kindle, which means the Kindle is a more attractive product. If they want to sell Kindles and sell content to the Kindle, then having a bunch of free content available is a good thing. My guess is there isn't anything corrupt or nefarious going on, but they really are just trying to sort out the submission process as they claim.
Lots of cases have various plastic pieces. Those still might be recyclable, but maybe not as easily recyclable as aluminum or steel.
I'm glad someone brought up the difference between redundancy/failover and backup. If you really care about your data, mirroring to another server isn't a much better backup solution than using RAID with mirroring. It protects you against hardware damage, but not necessarily against data corruption or data loss. If you're going to rsync to another server, you should look into having it keep backups instead of overwriting when something changes.
As you mentioned, nightly snapshots are a great way of handling it, too. However, I still like the idea of writing to tape periodically. Writing to tape provides a real backup instead of just a mirror, it's easy to send them offsite, in some ways they're less fragile than hard drives and supposedly easier to recover if they do break. Also, depending on how much is changing how often, rsyncing might use up a crap-ton of bandwidth (though apparently that's not as big a deal in the submitter's case, since he has GigE).
On the other hand, your suggestion of building a duplicate of the "real" machine has a benefit that other backup solutions don't: in the case of a real disaster, you not only have your data saved on another machine, but you can use the backup while you recover the original server. On the other hand, I don't know how much to trust a Drobo device, so in this particular case I might suggest getting some heavier equipment. (Or are Drobos actually good? I've never used one.)
Of course, there's another issue that I haven't seen anyone bring up, which is: is all of this data vital? You have 12 TB of storage, but is all of that completely irreplaceable, necessary data? Are some of those temporary files, scratch files, working files, or cache? Is any of it just dumb crap that you don't care about? It may seem like a dumb question, in every company I've worked for, if you give the employees free access to any amount of space, they'll fill it up. They'll have 20 copies of the same file, and someone will have put their 100GB MP3 collection on the server if you don't keep them from doing it. If you can organize the files and sort the necessary files from the crap, you might be able to cut down on the amount you need to back up.
Then again, storage is so cheap, maybe you don't care.
Yeah, I guess my point was only that it's not *simply* that they're trying to make money. It's not just that they want to take your money right now and don't care about the quality of the product they're producing. That's one kind of problem, but it's not the only thing going on.
They're also trying to lock everything down and control everything so that they can continually charge you without producing anything more, and guarantee a profitable business model even if they don't continue to produce anything of value or interest.
Well what's the difference really? They could say that the bill is $50 and you have to pay an extra $1.50 for a paper bill, or they could say the bill is $51.50 and you get a $1.50 discount for not receiving paper bills. Same thing.
But you're right in that it's smarter marketing to frame is as a discount rather than an additional charge.
Does DEP do anything other than make me disable it when it has a false positive on some application that I want to run? I think that the only time I've heard of it was when Windows wouldn't install some driver (and yes, I confirmed that it was a real driver from a valid source) and the website said, "If you have this problem, disable DEP."
If anything the last decade has taught us about the modus operandi of music industries is that they simply dont care and want their dollars.
Not to be needlessly argumentative, but I think part of what the past decade has taught me is that they want their *control*. They'll sacrifice a few dollars if it means that they get to maintain control over what you listen to, how you listen to it, and where you get it. They'll spend tons of money trying to ram a new album down your throat, and then once you buy it they'll spend some more money to keep you from listening to it without buying it again.